talk.politics.misc

On Aug 9, 5:27 am, ...@ wrote:
> On Aug 8, 8:28 pm, robxr...@ wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 6:54 am, ...@ wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 6:22 am, robxr4ti wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 7, 10:00 pm, ...@ wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 7, 9:15 pm, robxr4ti wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 7, 2:50 pm, ...@ wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 7, 1:56 pm, "Gandalf Grey"
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > >news: @ ...
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 7, 12:02 pm, ...@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On Aug 6, 7:23 pm, "Gandalf Grey"
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > >> >news: @ ...
>
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Aug 4, 5:12 pm, ...@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >> On Aug 3, 10:50 pm, Truth-monger wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > On Aug 3, 2:12 pm, ...@ wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > On Aug 3, 1:08 pm, "edi...@ "
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > On Aug 3, 6:17 am, ...@ wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Remember the station in Columbus, Ohio that dropped
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > progressive
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > talk
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > at the end of last year, in favor of wingnut talk?
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Columbus, Ohio is a "college town" and a state capital.
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Show
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > any
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > place outside of core urban Blue Nation where Err Amerika or
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > ANY
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > liberal talk show worked unless it either was a "college town"
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > or a
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > state capital.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Oh, I see... well, there are at least 600-700 'college towns'
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > and 50
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > state capitals in the country, so I suggest you support
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > legislation
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > that would mandate one progressive talk in each one, to test
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > your
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > theory.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Progressive talk hasn't even been TRIED in most markets yet, so
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > impossible to claim that it doesn't work. Which makes you guys
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > liars,
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > when you claim it doesn't work...
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > "Progressive" socialist lying talk radio was doomed from the
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > start, no
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > matter what pathetic excuse you make for it. Long live Rush
> > > > > > > > >> > >> > Limbaugh! Death to hippie progressives.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> So, how many sock puppets does this guy have, anyway...
>
> > > > > > > > >> > > That's pretty funny coming fromMilt/Biff/Stung-unnuts/Matt
>
> > > > > > > > >> > Not really, Lardass. How many nyms have you gone through in the last
> > > > > > > > >> > few
> > > > > > > > >> > years, "ACE, Patriot, Pet Rock?" I'm sure I've barely scratched the
> > > > > > > > >> > surface
> > > > > > > > >> > of all the names you've tried to hide behind before I made your lies
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > forgeries impossible for you to coverup.
>
> > > > > > > > >> He changes his nym on a regular basis, so as to make it near
> > > > > > > > >> impossible to trace the stupid shit he says on a regular basis.
>
> > > > > > > > >> I've used one name -- my own -- since i started on Usenet.
>
> > > > > > > > > ...andMiltused "Biff" a numbr of times...
>
> > > > > > > > And you used "ACE" until you were run out of the group for lying. And you
> > > > > > > > used "Patriot" until you were run out of the groups for lying....it's goes
> > > > > > > > on and on.
>
> > > > > > > > Now you're back doing the only thing you can do without lying.....spitting
> > > > > > > > venom at individuals and keeping away from any substantive discussion on
> > > > > > > > political issues.
>
> > > > > > > Well, in fact he IS lying about me, most of the time. I can't say for
> > > > > > > sure whether he's lying about others, although most of the crap he
> > > > > > > says is so innocuous, it really doesn't matter.
>
> > > > > > > You know, he's back to pretending he's a woman on yahoo again, and
> > > > > > > attempting to invite people to join "her" 360 page. So sad...
>
> > > > > > I'd ask you to back up your claim, but you'd probably just claim you
> > > > > > "read" it somewhere and run away just like you've been doing through
> > > > > > this whole thread.
>
> > > > > I could, but it's more fun the other way...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > If anyone wonders why Miltie has no credibility, the above response
> > > > should help.
>
> > > It's too bad wingnuts have no concept of irony...
>
> > > The irony in a statement in which someone with no credibility condemns
> > > another's credibility is so rich...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Hmm, have I made any false, unsupported claims as you've been
> > documented to have done so? You're long on insults, but extremely
> > short on supporting your own positions.
>
> Again with the irony.

Guess you haven't looked up the word yet...

>
> Yes, you make false, unsupported claims all of the time. It's the
> nature of right wing "debate," though, so you don't even see it. Nit-
> picking irrelevant details is your forte. The only way to do that is
> to make false, unsupported claims.

Now you claiming this *IS* irony.

>
> For example, I presented actual information from an actual ratings
> book, and cited it. Then, when you asked me to support it, I said that
> I couldn't post the actual numbers because I could get someone in
> trouble for doing so, I posted an all-day 12+ number from the R&R site
> and said it shows the general trend, but that it really doesn't have
> any bearing on the numbers I originally posted. Since then, you have
> continually called me a liar, and questioned my credibility for doing
> so, despite the fact that you have NO evidence that I am lying, and
> you have no basis for an opinion that I lack credibility.

You seem to have a problem with providing specific examples with
specific cites of this, relying on generalities, and then demanding
"prove me wrong". Anyone who expects you to back up your nonsense is
attacked by you as liar with no credibility as you have done above. I
called you a liar because you claim you "read" things somewhere but
can't provide the actual facts for anyone to review. I called you a
liar about the ratings because you made the stupid claim that somehow
a station lost 80% of its ratings due to a format change when, in
fact, it had already lost most of that 80% before the format change.
THAT is proveable and citable by using your own cite and as explained
above. When called on your bogus claim, you went into some strange
rant about how all low power stations lose their ratings due to season
change -- unsupported claim by you. I asked you to provide another
example of a similar station with a similar problem to support your
claim. Your usual response was "prove me wrong", take a look at the
cite you provided (it didn't back you up). Cites for all of this is
available by reviewing the thread, but I can be specific if you like.

In short, you can use the terms "liar" and "no credibility" and
"irony" all you want, but a review of your posts proves you wrong.